Has bmi range changed?
Kdp2015
Posts: 519 Member
I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
6
Replies
-
I thought it was always from 18.5-2512
-
It just seems odd tha the others (overweight, obese etc) are in 5s.
So I can assume 18.5-20 is still healthy?1 -
It changed many, many years ago, largely I believe to accomodate shorter people with slighter builds. B eing below 20 may or may not be appropriate for you.
For me, it wouldn't be remotely appropriate, but you can bet if the low end was 18.5 when I was late teens/early twenties I would have wanted to get down to that.7 -
I’m 5’10, not really sure how I’d describe my build - quite small I guess.1
-
It just seems odd tha the others (overweight, obese etc) are in 5s.
So I can assume 18.5-20 is still healthy?
I think it depends on your build and ethnicity. If you are short or from an Asian background where you have a small body frame then there is a fair chance of it being healthy. If you are tall or with an African descent with a larger frame chances are it would be underweight for you.14 -
The change to include 18.5 to 20 in the healthy range was made, primarily, to accommodate shorter women and Asian populations.
Considering that the average height for women in parts of Asia including China is 5 ft or less, US/Canada 5ft 4", Europe 5ft 6", Mexico 5ft 2", it is a pretty safe bet to say that someone over 5ft and a bit would probably not fall under the shorter women category.
Based on various bmi revision discussions about people 5ft and under getting an "extra" BMI point, I would suspect the change was primarily aimed to accommodate people who are 5ft or less.
I've also seen pregnancy healthy weight gain guidelines treating sub 20 bmi differently.
In all, I strongly suspect that few women substantially taller than 5ft do as well in the 18.5 to 20 range as they would at 20 or above.8 -
Did I read this right? You are 5 ft 10 inches??
Of course nothing wrong with being 5 ft 10 in but it is quite tall for a woman and at least average for a man - the lower end of BMI being suitable mainly for shorter women would not apply to you.
10 -
I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
you might want to look at your body fat and composition rather than just scale weight as you're right in the middle of a healthy BMI7 -
TavistockToad wrote: »I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
you might want to look at your body fat and composition rather than just scale weight as you're right in the middle of a healthy BMI
I would say low end for 5'10" as below 20 is mostly for shorter people. Studies I have seen on longevity indicate that below 20 is less healthy than the same difference above 25.4 -
I’m 145 atm I’ve been 135 before and didn’t feel too thin (I think that put me at 19.3 bmi) I think I’ve got at least 7lbs to go before the excess fat goes although I do have a bit more muscle now than when I was 135.2
-
I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
It may be worth exploring why your goal is to go to the absolute bottom of the range. Is there a reason you want to go to a weight that's generally recommended only for shorter and petite women, or Asian women, when you're neither short nor petite?16 -
I’d like to go as low as I can without being unhealthy, I would like to be thin but I don’t want to be too thin.collectingblues wrote: »I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
It may be worth exploring why your goal is to go to the absolute bottom of the range. Is there a reason you want to go to a weight that's generally recommended only for shorter and petite women, or Asian women, when you're neither short nor petite?
5 -
I’d like to go as low as I can without being unhealthy, I would like to be thin but I don’t want to be too thin.collectingblues wrote: »I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
It may be worth exploring why your goal is to go to the absolute bottom of the range. Is there a reason you want to go to a weight that's generally recommended only for shorter and petite women, or Asian women, when you're neither short nor petite?
you don't think you are thin now?6 -
No not reallyTavistockToad wrote: »
I’d like to go as low as I can without being unhealthy, I would like to be thin but I don’t want to be too thin.collectingblues wrote: »I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
It may be worth exploring why your goal is to go to the absolute bottom of the range. Is there a reason you want to go to a weight that's generally recommended only for shorter and petite women, or Asian women, when you're neither short nor petite?
you don't think you are thin now?
7 -
No not reallyTavistockToad wrote: »
I’d like to go as low as I can without being unhealthy, I would like to be thin but I don’t want to be too thin.collectingblues wrote: »I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
It may be worth exploring why your goal is to go to the absolute bottom of the range. Is there a reason you want to go to a weight that's generally recommended only for shorter and petite women, or Asian women, when you're neither short nor petite?
you don't think you are thin now?
Then work on recomping. You're hovering at a BMI that is the lowest end of the range for women who are *not* short, petite, or Asian. I'm 5'4" -- so half a foot shorter than you -- and my PCP and my endocrinologist have been *quite* clear with me that BMI 20 is the lowest that is acceptable to go.
If you don't think you're thin now, I can all but guarantee you that going to a BMI that is inappropriate for you is not going to make anything better.14 -
A person can be tall, but also have a small frame. A person can be shorter and have a larger frame. I think if the OP has a small frame, then it would be fine for her to be at a lower BMI.
I am 5’7.5 and personally feel slim, strong and healthy when my BMI is 20.5. My frame size is average. If my frame was small, I’d imagine I’d want to have a lower BMI. Again, if my frame was larger, I’d likely be happier at a higher BMI.
I have a friend who is about my height and 25 pounds less. She has a tiny frame and lovely figure. She would not be healthy at my weight if she gained 25 pounds of fat, nor I would look healthy at her weight. It’s relative to frame size, not height.12 -
I’d like to go as low as I can without being unhealthy, I would like to be thin but I don’t want to be too thin.collectingblues wrote: »I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
It may be worth exploring why your goal is to go to the absolute bottom of the range. Is there a reason you want to go to a weight that's generally recommended only for shorter and petite women, or Asian women, when you're neither short nor petite?
If that picture of you is current, you're already quite thin looking.
I'm 5'7"-5'8" and 140 is about as low as I want to go.7 -
It was 2 years ago I was around 1404
-
-
yeah, absolutely do whatever you want.
I was just saying she looked thin, in case she just couldn't see it for whatever reason. It's a thing...not believing you look thin/thin enough/good.
She looks great in the picture. That's all I was saying.9 -
I have maintained a BMI of around 19 for several years now, I agree with a PP that mentioned a recomp though. My body looks so different now that I am more serious about my weight training, even though my BMI is essentially the same it's always been. When I was just focused on cardio I dropped down to around 18.5 (120 pounds) and could tell I shouldn't keep losing but also was unhappy with my belly. Now I've put on about 5 lbs and am seeing a good deal of ab & arm definition. A good recomp can do wonders if you're looking for a certain aesthetic.13
-
I’d like to go as low as I can without being unhealthy, I would like to be thin but I don’t want to be too thin.collectingblues wrote: »I always thought a healthy bmi ranged from 20-25 but now lots of websites (nhs included) seem to be saying 18.5-25 is ok.
Can I check other peoples understanding of this?
I’m currently 20.8 and thought I would have to maintain at 20 but if this is the case maybe I can go lower and still be a healthy weight?
It may be worth exploring why your goal is to go to the absolute bottom of the range. Is there a reason you want to go to a weight that's generally recommended only for shorter and petite women, or Asian women, when you're neither short nor petite?
In general, I think the very lowest "healthy" BMI is probably not healthy for people of above average height. But there is a lot of stuff to take into consideration that we can't see. Have you had a check up lately? Maybe before you lose more weight, get one and tell your doctor that you'd like to lose a few more lbs, and see what they have to say.
I'd also second the suggestion to consider recomp, you might be able to get the "look" you want at a more moderate weight.
Seeing some of the other posts, I'd like to add that OP asked if a lower weight would be "healthy". Obviously she's free to aim for a lower weight than we would consider, or to chase an aesthetic that isn't necessarily healthy if she chooses. But I don't think it's out of line to suggest to a woman who is quite tall that aiming for the very lowest healthy BMI is probably not super healthy for her, when that's specifically what she asked. Many of us decide to settle for "a little unhealthy" if it suits us, but it's best to do that knowingly and with all our options laid out clearly.18 -
It just seems odd tha the others (overweight, obese etc) are in 5s.
So I can assume 18.5-20 is still healthy?
There are a lot of factors that go into whether or not that is actually healthy. A BMI of 19 would put me as a 5'10" male at 132 Lbs...I would basically look and be emaciated...I'd look sick AF and I would have to basically not only get lean, but also burn a lot of muscle mass. I would be quite skeletal...I don't think that would be healthy.
<<<For perspective, I'm 182 in my profile picture...as per BMI, I'm slightly overweight. I'm not super six pack lean, but I'm also not fat...about 15% BF. Even to get to the middle of the BMI range, I'd have to burn some muscle mass.
BMI isn't really a range in order that you can pick and choose and still be healthy...it is a range in order to accommodate various frames and builds, including more or less muscle mass.
Most people I've ever seen at the low end of BMI typically look like they're on the verge of being underweight...because they are. Basically skin and bones at that point.12 -
I had a check up a few weeks ago, other than low iron levels (which I’m taking supplements for now) and low blood pressure (which has always been low regardless of my weight) everything was ok. I didn’t mention losing weight as I didn’t think I needed to, I’m due back in a few weeks to recheck iron so will ask then
9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It just seems odd tha the others (overweight, obese etc) are in 5s.
So I can assume 18.5-20 is still healthy?
There are a lot of factors that go into whether or not that is actually healthy. A BMI of 19 would put me as a 5'10" male at 132 Lbs...I would basically look and be emaciated...I'd look sick AF and I would have to basically not only get lean, but also burn a lot of muscle mass. I would be quite skeletal...I don't think that would be healthy.
<<<For perspective, I'm 182 in my profile picture...as per BMI, I'm slightly overweight. I'm not super six pack lean, but I'm also not fat...about 15% BF. Even to get to the middle of the BMI range, I'd have to burn some muscle mass.
BMI isn't really a range in order that you can pick and choose and still be healthy...it is a range in order to accommodate various frames and builds, including more or less muscle mass.
Most people I've ever seen at the low end of BMI typically look like they're on the verge of being underweight...because they are. Basically skin and bones at that point.
Thanks, I think skin and bones is a personal opinion though, some people like to be curvy and some don’t.18 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It just seems odd tha the others (overweight, obese etc) are in 5s.
So I can assume 18.5-20 is still healthy?
There are a lot of factors that go into whether or not that is actually healthy. A BMI of 19 would put me as a 5'10" male at 132 Lbs...I would basically look and be emaciated...I'd look sick AF and I would have to basically not only get lean, but also burn a lot of muscle mass. I would be quite skeletal...I don't think that would be healthy.
<<<For perspective, I'm 182 in my profile picture...as per BMI, I'm slightly overweight. I'm not super six pack lean, but I'm also not fat...about 15% BF. Even to get to the middle of the BMI range, I'd have to burn some muscle mass.
BMI isn't really a range in order that you can pick and choose and still be healthy...it is a range in order to accommodate various frames and builds, including more or less muscle mass.
Most people I've ever seen at the low end of BMI typically look like they're on the verge of being underweight...because they are. Basically skin and bones at that point.
Thanks, I think skin and bones is a personal opinion though, some people like to be curvy and some don’t.
There's a happy medium between curvy and skin and bones. You can be lean without looking like you're borderline underweight. Or without *being* borderline underweight. That's why a number of people are suggesting recomp.12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »It just seems odd tha the others (overweight, obese etc) are in 5s.
So I can assume 18.5-20 is still healthy?
There are a lot of factors that go into whether or not that is actually healthy. A BMI of 19 would put me as a 5'10" male at 132 Lbs...I would basically look and be emaciated...I'd look sick AF and I would have to basically not only get lean, but also burn a lot of muscle mass. I would be quite skeletal...I don't think that would be healthy.
<<<For perspective, I'm 182 in my profile picture...as per BMI, I'm slightly overweight. I'm not super six pack lean, but I'm also not fat...about 15% BF. Even to get to the middle of the BMI range, I'd have to burn some muscle mass.
BMI isn't really a range in order that you can pick and choose and still be healthy...it is a range in order to accommodate various frames and builds, including more or less muscle mass.
Most people I've ever seen at the low end of BMI typically look like they're on the verge of being underweight...because they are. Basically skin and bones at that point.
Thanks, I think skin and bones is a personal opinion though, some people like to be curvy and some don’t.
There's a happy medium...I could drop to 170 or so and be very lean and aesthetically look really good because my muscles would be well defined, 6 pack and all of that...at 132 I would indeed be skin and bones...I know because that's about where I was when I was a senior in high school, and I was super skinny and bony.
Perhaps not liking that particular look is my opinion...but I've never seen anyone at the bottom end of BMI who didn't look pretty well emaciated...no fat, but no muscle either.13 -
There's a happy medium...I could drop to 170 or so and be very lean and aesthetically look really good because my muscles would be well defined, 6 pack and all of that...at 132 I would indeed be skin and bones...I know because that's about where I was when I was a senior in high school, and I was super skinny and bony.
Perhaps not liking that particular look is my opinion...but I've never seen anyone at the bottom end of BMI who didn't look pretty well emaciated...no fat, but no muscle either.[/quote]
Those with thin body types and small frames are ectomorphs. Certainly not emaciated simply because they are thin with small muscles. I’m also unsure why you are comparing yourself to a female as I think it likely your frame would be much larger than hers. Apples to oranges.18 -
And apparently I don’t know how to properly quote and respond to others. Sorry about the above reply.7
-
There's a happy medium...I could drop to 170 or so and be very lean and aesthetically look really good because my muscles would be well defined, 6 pack and all of that...at 132 I would indeed be skin and bones...I know because that's about where I was when I was a senior in high school, and I was super skinny and bony.
Perhaps not liking that particular look is my opinion...but I've never seen anyone at the bottom end of BMI who didn't look pretty well emaciated...no fat, but no muscle either.
Those with thin body types and small frames are ectomorphs. Certainly not emaciated simply because they are thin with small muscles. I’m also unsure why you are comparing yourself to a female as I think it likely your frame would be much larger than hers. Apples to oranges. [/quote]
Somatotypes aren't a thing...
My best friend's ex is very thin and at the bottom of BMI...he loves that look...to me, she just looks ill with ribs and other bones poking out everywhere. She has a very small frame and bone structure...probably borderline essential fat and pretty much only enough muscle mass to move...
Like I said, it's just not my thing aesthetically and I've never seen anyone that low who did not look somewhat ill to me. Other people think it's hot...I'm not one of those people.14
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions